Development Morality

1. There is no consensus on either the data to be used or the
model to be used to determine the benefits of trade.

2. The conclusions reached by various analysts tend to mirror
their ideological viewpoints, this alone should make one wary of
accepting their conclusions. Liberals find less benefit and more
problems with trade than do conservatives.

3. Mathematical modeling with sparse data sets generates
unreliable results. Not only can a model be found to match any
such data collection, but in this case there are variables which
are excluded or unknown when doing the analysis. I'm afraid much
of this type of work is GIGO.

So, I have concluded that presenting "data" and models is
ideologically or politically motivated and should be treated as
such. It's not science, or if it is attempting to be scientific,
it is dealing with cases too complex to analyze reliably with
current tools.

The moral argument, however, is independent of models and
depends only on some simple data, to wit:

1. The world is already consuming more than a sustainable
amount of "stuff". Recent estimates are 1.3-1.5 times the
renewable amount.

2. The consumer taking the most unequal share is the US,
followed by Japan and western Europe. The US consumes 40% of the
resources with 5% of the population. For other countries to even
reach a fraction of this level of consumption is mathematically
impossible.

3. Therefore, any plan which increases US consumption must do
so at the expense of others in particular and the future world in
general. Taking more than your share is immoral. Taking even more
than your share when you are already over consuming is evil.

What's the solution?

There are three proposals.

1. Continue to consume more in order to keep the economy
"growing". The justifications for this are that the imbalance
will be solved by future technological gains, and/or our growth
will drag the less prosperous along. (The rising tide metaphor.)
This is where the current trade debates among development experts
is centered.

2. Improvements in efficiency and conservation will permit
growth to continue and the benefits will expand to all. This is
weaker than the first argument, because improvements in
efficiency (or conservation) only delay the date when resources
become exhausted. This is postponing the problem, not solving
it.

3. Consume less. This is the only moral position, but since it
runs counter to 300 years of capitalism and the industrial
revolution it is never considered by either the left or the
right. When this is coupled with an acknowledgment that the world
population is above the sustainable level and is continuing to
grow at a troublesome rate what is needed to be done becomes a
series of stark and unpalatable choices.

Therefore all discussions about mutually beneficial trade
policies where one of the partners already has too much are
avoiding the real issues and are, therefore, if not immoral, at
least amoral.

The US could cut its GDP in half and then be living the kind
of lifestyle of Spain or similar places. What's so terrible about
that?

Politicians have to pander to the self-centered interests of
voters otherwise they end up like Jimmy Carter, but why do
economists and other social scientists have to play along? Tell
people to take their cod liver oil, it's the only moral thing to
do. And then start to work on how to transition to a sustainable,
but technologically advanced society.